Standing Committee E

[Frank Cookin the Chair]

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 26, in clause 7, page 7, line 15, leave out from second ‘school' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 66, in clause 7, page 7, line 16, leave out
‘with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
No. 76, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the publication of proposal under subsection (5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or community special school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that the establishment of such a school would lead to substantially better academic results than would be the case for a foundation or foundation special school.'.
No. 180, in clause 7, page 7, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 5(b)(ii) in any case in which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to be supported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may be prescribed by regulations.'.
No. 21, in schedule 2, page 113, line 23, leave out from ‘section' to ‘and' in line 25.
No. 182, in schedule 2, page 113, line 35, at end insert
‘and
(c) preventing further consideration of any proposal made pursuant to a notice under section 7 without there having been first conducted by the relevant authority a ballot of such category or categories of parents as may be prescribed in which a majority of those voting have given their approval to the further consideration of the proposal under this Schedule.'.

Nick Gibb: Before lunch I was saying that I hoped to see the Liberal party join the emerging consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties on how to tackle underperforming schools. I will leave the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) to explain amendment No. 66, but suffice it to say that if she decides to press it to a vote we will certainly oppose it, as what it proposes is outwith the spirit of the White Paper and the Bill, both of which we support.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 182 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is not joined on this occasion by his partner in crime the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). Durham is a beautiful city; although it is one of the few places where I did not go to school, I did go to university there. The amendments appear to contradict the hon. Gentleman’s views about giving certain groups of electors rights over and above the rights of the electorate as a whole, which he expressed in relation to amendment No. 179 and the proposal that 50 parents should be able to trigger a notice under clause 7.
The amendments state that the Secretary of State may not refuse consent for a local authority to establish a community school in circumstances where the local authority can demonstrate that such a proposal is supported by a certain number of parents. Well, how about 50 parents? Did the hon. Gentleman have such a number in mind when tabling his amendment?
Amendment No. 182 would impose the requirement for a ballot among certain categories of parents wherever there are proposals under clause 7 for a new school. Would not that create special rights for those electors over and above others? That should be the hon. Gentleman’s objection to his own amendments. My objection is that the amendments will thwart the objective of trying to create a more diverse range of schools by turning every new proposal into a major political campaign, the threat of which would put many groups of parents or others off venturing down that route in the first place.
The Conservative party agrees with paragraph 5.14 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states:
“Through the clarification of the local authority role in relation to school organisation, and the provision of a decision-making framework which supports diversity and innovation, more schools will have a character that supports the development of an individual ethos and enables them to take responsibility for their own future progress. This will increase the range of choice for parents and the potential for innovation and improved standards.”
The amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled will jeopardise or slow down the implementation of that approach, which we believe is the correct one. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments.

Sarah Teather: I shall speak to amendment No. 66, but I shall also comment on the whole group. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that the amendments and the clause go to the heart of the Bill. I would say that the amendments do something much more profound and go to the heart of our understanding of the nature of the relationship between central and local government. The presence in the clause of the phrase
“with the consent of the Secretary of State”
says something profound about the Government’s understanding of their relationship with local government. The fact that the Conservatives want to remove local authorities’ ability to have a role in providing education says something similarly profound about their relationship with local government.
What should local government be? Is it an arm of the Government’s public service delivery, or a discrete, autonomous, directly elected tier of government, able to make its own decisions, accountable to the local community, free to pursue local policies relevant to local people, and—this is the key point—free to disagree with central Government? That thought should be at the heart of our consideration of the relationship between central and local government. Are we prepared to give those in local government the right to disagree with central Government policy because that is what is wanted by local people, who elected them, on the basis of their manifesto, to do something that was important for them in their own area?
The Government like to pay lip service to the idea of localism, but whenever they are presented with an opportunity to legislate, they cannot resist centralising powers. As we have heard, the clause contains one of 60 mentions in the first 70 pages of the Bill of action by the Secretary of State. Subsection (5)(b)(ii) demonstrates that even when the Government are prepared to devolve with one hand, they centralise with the other. That is not good enough.
It is worth looking at some of the conflicting statements that the Government have made. For example, the 10-year plan of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister contains a local vision. When I looked at that pretty flimsy document, I did not think that it was much of a vision. Nevertheless, one of the objectives it lists is
“devolution and delegation to the front line, giving local leaders responsibility and accountability and the opportunity to design services around the needs of local people”.
In a previous sitting of the Committee, when we were discussing clause 1, the Minister for Schools said,
“I am not arguing that locally elected politicians do not have difficult decisions to make about local priorities. That is what they are elected to do and that is an appropriate role for local government.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c. 107.]
Later, she said,
“Local authorities have an important role to play in school organisation in the broadest sense. The legislation will increase that role.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 March 2006; c. 120.]
I am not sure that clause 7 supports that view. Later still, the right hon. Lady said,
“local authorities should be able to determine their own arrangements to make sure that they work for their parents and their community.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E,30 March 2006; c. 153.]
That is the heart of the issue. Are we prepared to give local authorities the freedom to make decisions based on what local people want or are we not?
The Conservatives also have conflicting views on localism, as I know from having discussed such matters privately with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. He is not entirely sympathetic to his party’s current fashion of going local—perhaps he will intervene on me if he disagrees—but the leader of his party has stated:
“We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away. We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation.”
If that is the Conservatives’ view, why would the hon. Gentleman vote against our amendment, which would ensure far more local accountability and less centralisation? That is what his party leader is advocating as one of his latest new policy wangles.
The group of amendments goes to the heart of our understanding of the proper relationship between central Government and local government. The hon. Member for Bury, North, who will speak to his own amendments, has attempted to fetter and define the Secretary of State’s discretion. I am sure that that will at least narrow the scope for the Secretary of State to intervene, but that is not good enough for us. This is a matter of principle, and we will pursue it.

David Chaytor: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 180 and 182. Amendment No. 182 would amend schedule 2, not clause 7, but that does not matter for now because its spirit is identical to that of amendment No. 180.
I have some sympathy with amendment No. 66, which is why I put my name to it. It is important in that it has enabled us to explore the arguments for and against the Secretary of State’s veto. I am far more concerned about arguing the case for amendment No. 180, which makes the point that if the Secretary of State is to be given the power to exercise a veto, there would be a contradiction with the spirit of the White Paper and the Bill—which give greater emphasis to the voice of parents—if that veto were exercised when a significant number of parents wished their children to attend a new community school. At the heart of this group of amendments, and the other two groups of amendments to the clause, is the precise relationship between the roles of parents, the local authority and central Government. It is misguided to characterise this as a debate between those who are utterly centralist and those who put the voice of parents at the forefront of every decision about the future of our schooling system. I do not see it that way. It is a question of striking the right balance between parents, the local authority and central Government.
Without revisiting the debate on the previous group of amendments, specifically amendment No. 179, my argument with the arbitrary selection of 50 parents as an automatic trigger for a new school is that it ignores certain practical realities. For example, if there were another group of 51 parents who campaigned vigorously against the opening of a new school, how could it be logical to allow the voice of the 50 to have priority? If those 50 parents happened to have children in year 11 and were unlikely to have any future interest in the school, how could it be logical to give them the key power to influence the building of a new school?
I said in our debate on the previous group of amendments that I was fearful that the Opposition might take on board some of my criticisms and thereby improve their amendments, but I am now relaxed because it is clear that they have not. If they wished to improve the amendment, it would surely make more sense to establish a percentage of the eligible body of parents as the threshold figure to trigger the request for a new school. Fifty parents in a rural area with a small school may be an overwhelming majority of eligible parents.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his helpful advice. If we were to table such an amendment on Report, would it attract his support?

David Chaytor: It would give me food for thought. However, I have phrased amendment No. 180 to take that point on board. Plucking out an arbitrary figure or percentage in Committee is probably not the best way to proceed, which is why my amendment suggests that such matters should be dealt with by regulations under secondary legislation, because that would allow for a period of more careful consideration and consultation on what the right percentage should be.
My right hon. Friend the Minister’s explanation of why the Government considered a threshold and rejected it is probably sound. Arbitrary figures in such circumstances can lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. It is probably better to come to a judgment with all the evidence than to have a single trigger, because single triggers can vary by accident. For example, the expulsion of two children from a school would affect the threshold for the number or percentage of parents who could demand a new school. Such small, practical matters must be considered, which is why the issue would be dealt with better by secondary legislation.
I have spent most of the 20 or 30 years of my political life encouraging the voices of parents to get more of them involved in decisions on their children’s education and the overall planning of education in their local district. That is not easy. We should not overestimate the simplicity of such matters. I am arguing not against giving parents a voice, but in favour of balancing the voice of some parents with that of others and the wider community. We have to recognise that in planning a local education service, there needs to be an authority that takes on board the interests of all parents and children in the district—not only the interests of parents of children currently in school, but those of the next generation, looking 10 or 20 years ahead. We need an authority that can look not only at the current wider situation, but take longer-term decisions. Understandably, most parents are interested primarily in what happens to their own child, in their own school, for the period that that child is at that school. That is why I have put down markers pointing out that handing over supreme decision making to a small number of parents probably is not in the longer-term community interest.
Factors relevant to school performance also are at the heart of the amendments. The weakness in the Conservatives’ argument is that they start from a hugely ideological position that local education authorities are disastrous bureaucratic obstructions to the advancement of education in this country. Frankly, if that is their view, I am surprised that they are even fielding candidates in the local elections in two week’s time, but that is something that they will have to discuss with their own electorate.
Such a view defies the reality that, during the 136 years in which we have had some form of local education authority in the United Kingdom, the schooling system generally has advanced. Levels of achievement among our children have improved significantly—if they have not always improved year on year, they are certainly doing so now—and local authorities have played an important role in that. That is not to say that local authorities are the driving force behind the quality of education, or that there are not better and poorer local authorities, but to take as a starting point a sweeping generalisation that local authorities are an obstruction and make no contribution whatever to the provision of quality education in a given area is non-credible.
If we look at Ofsted’s frequent thematic and annual reports, and its reports on individual schools, we do not find it drawing a hugely close relationship between the performance of an individual school and that of a local authority. The fact remains that there are many local authorities in the United Kingdom that in recent years have received extremely good Ofsted reports, but still contain schools that are in difficulties. Furthermore, there are many good local authorities in the United Kingdom that more recently have obtained extremely good reports from the comprehensive assessment conducted by the Audit Commission, but that still contain within their boundaries schools in great difficulties. It is a mistake to assume that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the local authority and that of the education in all the schools within that authority's borders.

Nadine Dorries: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the ideological position is not ours, because we did not produce the White Paper or the Bill? As I have said, the White Paper will take power away from local authorities and give it to parents and to governing and parent councils, which would be a move away from LEAs. That is because the Prime Minister and the Minister recognise that the LEAs are failing. It is not our ideological position; we did not produce the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman’s party did.

David Chaytor: With respect, I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the White Paper and looks at the Bill more carefully, because that is not my interpretation. The White Paper argues for a different relationship between schools and their local education authority, not for the abolition of LEAs. The failure of the main opposition party to understand the shifting relationship between schools and LEAs is at the heart of the weakness of its position on the Bill and of its amendments.
I would have thought that there was overwhelming consensus among those involved in the management and evaluation of education that the key factors that determine whether a school succeeds are: the quality of management and teaching; the nature and the flexibility of the curriculum; the admissions policy that determines which children gain access to which schools; and wider issues such as parental engagement and the relationship with the local community. Those are the themes that come out time and again in Ofsted’s specific reports, thematic reports and annual reports. I do not recall any Ofsted report saying that the way for a school to improve its weaknesses would be simply to transfer its ownership from the local authority to an external body.
I am not arguing against greater diversity of ownership; I think that it has a role in injecting an element of competition into the system, which I believe helps to drive up standards. What I am arguing against is the simplistic assumption that diversity of ownership can in itself override the key factors of the quality of management, leadership and teaching, the flexibility of the curriculum and the nature of the intake.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the criteria that define a good school. They might be summed up as expectations. Expectations are critical in all the areas that he described—leadership, quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of the home-school relationship. He is also right that those things are, in essence, more important than structure, but structure can be inhibiting. We should consider the role of those who manage and resource schools—those to whom the schools are answerable—because they can inhibit the qualities that he described. That is at the heart of the White Paper’s consideration and the Bill, is it not?

David Chaytor: I agree that those factors can inhibit, but they can also encourage and strengthen. For every one example of a school in difficulties that happens to be a community school, or that happens to be located in the area of a less than effective local authority, any Member of this House could, from their experience and constituencies, quote examples of first-class, high-performing community schools, and local authorities that are instrumental in driving up performance across their district. I do not imagine for one moment that the Opposition will listen to, or take on board, what I say, but I want to get it on record that the sweeping generalisation that LEAs are an obstruction to the advancement of educational improvement is naive and misguided.

Nick Gibb: I hope that the hon. Gentleman paid as much attention to my remarks as I am paying attention to his. The purpose of the amendments was not to say that local authorities are incapable of providing a decent education; if that was our view, we would not support the Bill at all, because as the Minister said, it gives new powers to local authorities. We are comfortable with that. The amendment is all about providing diversity, because at the moment the overwhelming majority of schools are community schools. The hon. Gentleman has himself said that the injection of diversity will help to drive up standards. If we continue to produce more community schools, we will decrease diversity, because community schools are the overwhelming majority of schools in this country.

David Chaytor: It is true that the majority of schools are community schools. However, the concept of diversity should be considered more widely than simply in the context of governance and ownership. There is a powerful argument to be made that the key weakness of our system for many years—I do not put a date on that; I am not pointing the finger at the Conservative Government—has been the absence of diversity within our schools and of sufficient flexibility within the curriculum. Those things are as important as providing a diversity of schools with slightly different characteristics.

Sarah Teather: I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of diversity within schools; we do not concentrate on that when we get so focused on the diversity of structures. Does he agree that, in preventing the setting-up of any new community schools, the effect of the Conservatives’ amendment would be to reduce choice, not increase it?

David Chaytor: That is exactly the point I made earlier; it would be a contradiction if the Government who wanted to encourage a greater voice for parents and greater parental involvement used the Secretary of State’s veto to deny the clearly expressed wishes of parents.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that his amendment was designed to achieve greater diversity. I fully accept that the Opposition’s position is not to abolish local authorities completely or take them out of the system. However, I challenge their unquestioned assumption that the mass transfer of community schools to foundation school or some other status would inevitably lead to higher standards and better opportunities for children in a way that could not be achieved by other means.
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier about the range of measures that the Bill encourages when schools have clearly been in difficulty for some time. Pointing the finger at the local education authority as the sole cause of a school’s difficulties is absolutely misguided. In my experience, when a school is in difficulties it is largely—almost entirely—due to a failure of management. The simplest way of turning a school around must be to improve the quality of management and leadership; everything else follows from that.
I challenge the notion that the mass transfer of community schools to foundation school status would have a dramatic and sweeping effect. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman gave figures about the differing performances of foundation schools and community schools at GCSE. I think he said that of community school and foundation school pupils respectively, 38 per cent. and 44 per cent. got five A* to C grades. Those are raw statistics, which we have to consider carefully. They take no account of the respective intake of those categories of school, or of the level of achievement of the children who go to them aged 11. That undermines any argument that the hon. Gentleman is making. It was significant that he decided at that point to focus on the raw statistics, whereas previously when talking about underperformance he focused on value-added measures rather than raw statistics. If we want to compare the performance of foundation and community schools, we should look at the aggregated, value-added statistics. I do not know what they are, but they should be explored.

Edward Leigh: To better inform the Committee, I have obtained some results from schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Some 35 per cent. of pupils at Broad Oak high school, a community school, achieved five A* to C grades—level 2—while those at Bury Church of England high school, a voluntary-aided school, achieved 76 per cent. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that is?

David Chaytor: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has cited those figures, because they bring me to the exact point I was going to make. I should like to put on record the figures for the comparative intakes for schools in London, particularly those for inner-London faith schools—both Church of England and Roman Catholic—compared with those for community schools in inner London.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Chaytor: I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I can see that he is restless. The answer in terms of the two schools in my constituency is that their differential intake is significant. The Broad Oak school represents one of the poorest parts of my constituency. It is an excellent school that has made great leaps forward in recent years. It happens to be located about 100 yd from where I was born, so I know it quite well. Bury Church of England high school is also an excellent school, but its intake spreads for a radius of about 25 miles. If the hon. Gentleman compares the two schools’ intake, the figures for free school meals and number of children whose first language is not English, that will give him the answer to his question.
I come back to the situation in London and the most recent figures for the intake of community schools and foundation schools. If we look at the ethnic mix in London’s foundation schools, we find that the proportion of children from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds is about 50 per cent. lower than in community schools. The proportion of children from Bangladeshi and Pakistani backgrounds in foundation schools is also about 50 per cent. lower than in community schools. If we look at the free school meals index, we find that the proportion of children on free school meals in Roman Catholic and Church of England schools is about 50 per cent. lower than in community schools.

Nick Gibb: The left often wax lyrical about the idea that somehow intake is to blame or is responsible for the performance of a school. I believe that the school itself is either a good school or a poor school. If we consider the children who qualify for free school meals in foundation schools and voluntary aided schools, we see the same results: 16.8 per cent. of children in community schools who receive free school meals achieve five or more good GCSEs, compared with 23.7 per cent. of such children in voluntary aided schools and 20.4 per cent. in foundation schools. Even for those children, foundation and voluntary aided schools perform better.

David Chaytor: I am not waxing lyrical, nor am I pointing the finger of blame at any single factor among all the factors affecting school performance. I am saying that the naive assumption that transferring a school from one status to another will automatically improve conditions is just not tenable. There are many easier ways to improve school performance before taking that step.
Widening diversity in the system and changing the status of some schools is a useful and important option—that is why I was prepared to support the Bill on Second Reading—but I do not see it as a panacea. We are misguiding and deceiving ourselves if we lead ourselves to believe that it is. Nor do I think that the Government necessarily think that it is the only possible course of action in response to clear cases in which schools have been underperforming for a number of years.
I had better bring my remarks to a close, but I want to make the point that amendment No. 180, which calls for the ballot of parents, would be helpful to those who want to change the status of schools, because it would give greater legitimacy to the call for a change of status. The difficulty with the alternative approach of having a minimum number of parents is that it would remain a divisive issue, because almost certainly there would be an equal or greater number of parents who would feel aggrieved that a small minority had been able to secure their own preference for a change of status. I commend amendments Nos. 180 and 182 to the Committee.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I shall make a few comments in opposition to amendment No. 26, but before doing so I should say to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton how terribly sorry I am that he did not go to school in Durham. We have some excellent schools in Durham—I should add that they are doing particularly well under the current Government—and I am sure that one of them would have wholeheartedly welcomed the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the majority report of the Education and Skills Committee, of which I am a member. We asked the Government to consider allowing local authorities to put forward proposals for community schools in competitions for a new school. Support for that in the Committee was pretty widespread, with the exception of the official Opposition. We are very happy that the Government listened to the arguments that were put forward; that clearly demonstrates that they are in listening mode.
That is because it is Labour Members who do not want to be unduly prescriptive, particularly about parents’ wishes, where there are good local reasons for a community school being proposed. We recognise that there may be a limited set of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a community school to be proposed. Nevertheless, if we are to enable local authorities, parents and others to respond to local circumstances, it is obviously vital that this possibility exists.
I wish to emphasise the point that this opinion was widespread in the Select Committee, because it is the official Opposition who are terribly out of line in respect of allowing new community schools to be proposed. In this morning’s sitting we heard a lot about parent power. I think that the Opposition were supporting that, but they seem to be prescribing when they will support it, and that is illogical.

Greg Mulholland: I shall speak to amendment No. 66. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East talked about the new localism that is sweeping the other two parties at present; they are finally catching up with the Liberal Democrats in that regard. Localism is of course supposed to be at the heart of the Bill. We are told that it is specifically about parental choice. However, if it is about parental choice, and if parents want a new community school, why on earth should they not be allowed to have one without the Secretary of State having to give her say-so?
We recently had a school reorganisation in my constituency. We have some excellent schools in the locality, but it was notable that there was a very strong body of opinion in support of one of the local community schools. It has excellent results, which are comparable to those of the local voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools. Therefore, in some areas there is a strong body of opinion among parents that a community school is right for their area, for very clear reasons.
The Conservatives’ animosity to community schools is a strange premise when sat next to their supposed commitment to parent power. It is clear from the messages coming through that they regard community schools as second-rate—as schools that do not compare favourably with other schools. That is an interesting message to put across to all the parents and governors of the excellent community schools that there are throughout the country.

Nadine Dorries: I intervene as a parent who sends her children to local community schools. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that comment. The Conservatives have not given any indication at all that we regard community schools as second-rate schools. In fact, we have stated the opposite. What the hon. Gentleman says is completely ridiculous.

Greg Mulholland: The clear message coming from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is that community schools will clearly be second rate because they will have to prove that they will deliver better results before they can go ahead.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Mulholland: No, I want to make progress. We have a lot to get through. When we discussed clause 1, the Minister said:
“I certainly want to ensure that local authorities have every weapon at their disposal as they seek to promote high standards”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 March 2006; c. 54.]
Yet, here we have a situation in which having such a veto blatantly means that the weapon is not available, or that it is available in the same way that we have a nuclear deterrent, but can use it only if the President of the United States gives us the key and allows us to use it. Surely, such a veto is unnecessary in the circumstances.
The Secretary of State insisted that she would use the power of veto only rarely. That is at least welcome. She said that she would “not normally intervene” when the council in question has a good track record and parents in the area want the new school. [Interruption.]

Frank Cook: Order. There is quite a loud hubbub coming particularly from the Government side of the Committee. Exchanges of conversation pertaining to the Bill are essential and permitted, but general discussion is definitely frowned upon. Will members of the Committee please bear my remarks in mind?

Greg Mulholland: Perhaps I have woken up those on the Government Benches after lunch, although perhaps not one at the Ritz.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Mulholland: Let me put my question to the Minister. What criteria will the Secretary of State be using to judge matters? Will the right hon. Lady give an example of when the veto would be used, because that will make the issue more clear? Why are the Government prescribing the setting up of a particular school? Surely it should be a matter of local choice that is based simply on local want and need. Research undertaken by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that there is no significant difference between types of schools in the improvement in pupil performance between prior attainment at key stage 2 and GCSE. It means that there is a flaw in the arguments expressed by Conservative Front Benchers about amendment No. 76. As the hon. Member for Bury, North made clear, we cannot simply look at results without examining intake, admissions policies and the percentage of children receiving free school meals.
The simple fundamental point is that we all believe in parental choice. We are told that it is the purpose of the Bill yet, without the Secretary of State’s say-so, parents will not be given the opportunity to set up a new community school. That is perverse. There is no reason why local authorities should have to seek permission from the Secretary of State to build a new community school if the community wants one. It flies in the face of the localism that is supposed to be at the heart of the Bill. I suggest that, if the Minister wants this to be a truly local education Bill, the veto is dropped. We will then support the clause. Alternatively, she can continue to pander to the Conservatives.

Meg Hillier: We are having an interesting debate on the group of amendments. I wish to speak to amendment No. 66 because I am sure that there is a cross-party consensus on the belief of decentralisation and local decision making, something that I began championing at the start of my political career and shall continue to champion. It is important to remember the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about good local authorities because most of them do a generally good job guiding and supporting schools in their achievements.
It will be interesting to comment briefly on the ability of parents to recognise whether a school is good. I believe in parent power, but Ofsted figures have shown that parents’ views of a school’s performance are often out of kilter with its actual performance, particularly at primary level where loyalties to the school kick in without parents using their critical faculties or having access to the classrooms. Some schools shut parents out, so they are not always able to tell what is really going on. I welcome the emphasis that the Bill puts on the strategic role of the local authority, giving it enhanced powers to direct what happens in the local area and to commission good education.
We must also recognise that local education authorities have failed in the past. I have had the misfortune to represent three different London boroughs that have had difficulties with their education systems. I am now the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. Hackney LEA failed its children, so the Government intervened and established the Learning Trust, which, in conjunction with strong political executive leadership from the elected Mayor and his cabinet colleagues, has now set a clear direction for education in Hackney.
The trust has listened to what parents want—more mixed and non-denominational schools—and has set out in conjunction with Government to deliver those things by the mechanisms that they have made available. It has embraced such schools as part of a family of Hackney schools set up and established by the political and education leadership of the borough.
We see the benefits of good LEAs, soon to be children’s authorities. It is right that they are to have this new important strategic role, but we also need a mechanism whereby Government can step in when LEAs or children’s authorities fail their children. It would be wrong for LEAs that are not doing a good job to be allowed to go their own way and to continue on a path that is not good for local children and is not delivering for them.
There must be a balance. I believe that local decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. I am keen to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister exactly when she thinks it is right for the Secretary of State to use the veto. It should not be used willy-nilly, but it should exist, just as in planning there is a mechanism for a call-in to the Secretary of State or, in London, to the Mayor of London. I am keen for the Minister to emphasise exactly when she thinks the veto could be used. I hope she will tell me that she is not planning to use it all the time. She is on the record as saying that she would not be keen to veto routinely. Will she give us an idea about where the balance would lie?

Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) is completely wrong. It is not that we have a particular bias in favour of one school or another—in favour of community schools or against them. We are simply trying to reflect what parents want. Parents are probably pretty vague about what a community school, a voluntary aided school or a voluntary controlled school is. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene on his speech, even though I am happy to give way to him. I must say to him that all parents can do is look at results.

Greg Mulholland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I have hardly made my point, but I shall give way.

Greg Mulholland: I did not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention simply because it immediately followed another intervention. I was waiting for him to ask to intervene again and I would have been happy to give way, but he did not do so.

Edward Leigh: I did try a second time, but let us not dwell on it.
As was said very honestly by the hon. Member for Bury, North, for the most part parents are interested only in their children and in their children’s school—why should they not be? They want to get their children into the best schools and they can look only at the results.
For instance, a parent in Leeds, North-West would see that the 79 per cent. of Abbey Grange Church of England high school’s pupils achieved five A* to C-grade GCSE passes. It is a voluntary aided school. Lawnswood school is a community school. Parents would not have any particular bias against community schools, but only 42 per cent. of its pupils achieved five passes at those grades. I believe that Prince Henry’s grammar school in Otley, which is a comprehensive school and is voluntary controlled, achieved a figure of 73 per cent., and Ralph Thoresby high school, which is a community school, achieved 58 per cent.
It is not a question of being for community schools or against them. The evidence tends to show that voluntary aided or voluntary controlled foundation schools have a better record. I fully accept that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has local knowledge about Leeds, North-West and I have none. I can look only at the results and I suspect that that is also what parents do. They do not know in detail about those schools until they look at the results and I have outlined what they will find.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman’s argument underlines the fatuous nature of league tables. As many hon. Members have already made it clear, the raw results often depend far more on the intake and the area. The conclusion that one school is inevitably better because the children get better results cannot be drawn by comparing them; that is not an accurate distinction.

Edward Leigh: I am not sure how else parents draw a conclusion. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats are now against any evaluation available to parents.
League tables are quite useful, but of course they do not explain the whole story and there may be other reasons why parents want their children to go to a particular school. I shall not discuss the schools in the constituencies of all Committee members, just those of hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. Let us consider the schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). Cardinal Pole Roman Catholic school, a voluntary aided school that is presumably in a difficult area, has a 53 per cent. pass rate. However, Homerton college of technology has a staggeringly low 23 per cent. pass rate. The hon. Lady can intervene on me, but if I were a parent living in Hackney, I should much rather see my child get into Cardinal Pole Roman Catholic school, with 53 per cent., than Homerton college of technology, with 23 per cent.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples and pears. Homerton college of technology is in the process of closure as a school and will be reopening as a new city technology academy. It has been unwinding as a school and has had problems.
School GCSE passes in Hackney have increased from 30 per cent. to 47 per cent. over the past two and a bit years, which is greater than Westminster schools, if that is of any interest to the hon. Gentleman. One new school is opening in September, another is due to open in September 2007 and a further two or three city technology academies are in the pipeline.
Sorry for my long intervention, Mr. Cook. However, education in Hackney is on the up. The hon. Gentleman cannot compare Homerton and Cardinal Pole.

Edward Leigh: I am sure that it is on the up. I am not trying to decry the difficulties from which Hackney suffers or has faced in the past. The fact is that in the past it has had some of the worst results in the country, although no doubt it is making progress, which is good. All I am saying is, how else can parents make such judgments?
Whichever Committee member’s constituency we look at, we seem to find an extraordinarily common pattern emerging. Let us deal with the Minister’s constituency. Why does Arrow Vale community high school, a community comprehensive school, achieve 34 per cent. and St. Augustine’s Catholic high school, which is also a comprehensive and presumably has to abide by all the regulations ensuring that it is a proper comprehensive school, get 71 per cent.? No doubt she will tell me that there is a reason for that. There must be a pattern emerging.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I give way to the expert.

David Chaytor: I am not clear what conclusions the hon. Gentleman is drawing. He is in a state of denial about the impact of geography, social class, the first language of the family and previous educational achievement. The only conclusion that we could draw from his argument is that everyone should convert to Catholicism. What else is he saying?

Edward Leigh: I am not in denial. If we look at the value-added impact on schools, a consistent picture emerges of voluntary aided, voluntary controlled or foundation schools performing better than community schools. Parents look at the league tables and come away with that inevitable conclusion about their own area.
I am quite lucky in my constituency. I could mention Caistor grammar school, which has 98 per cent.—[Interruption.]

Frank Cook: Order. Can we make this the last example, please?

Edward Leigh: Yes, I do not want to weary you, Mr. Cook. I will not talk about the Queen Elizabeth high school, with 98 per cent. But what about the William Farr Church of England faith school in Welton—a comprehensive school with a comprehensive intake—with an 80 per cent. pass rate, compared with Cherry Willingham community school with only a 50 per cent. pass rate? What is going on? Cherry Willingham is only three or four miles from Welton. Both schools are in suburban, middle-class, prosperous villages in the east midlands, just north of Lincoln. Why does William Farr Church of England school, have an 80 per cent. pass rate when Cherry Willingham community school’s is only 50 per cent.?
That is a matter of huge concern for parents, is it not? They are not interested in all the debates between political parties. With my local knowledge, I know what they are desperate to do. They are desperate to get their children into William Farr Church of England school, because of its results. It has an entirely old-fashioned catchment area. Anyone who lives within 3,000 yd of it gets in; anyone who lives 3,001 yd from it does not. It happens to have a superb head teacher. It is a very good school with a wonderful ethos, and it delivers the results.
I say to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West that we are not biased against a particular type of school just because it is called a community school, although those schools happen to be the ones run by local authorities. We are just reflecting what parents tell us. They are voting with their feet. They want to get their kids into schools that deliver the best results, and when they look at the various schools, they find that those are the schools with more independence—precisely the type of school that the Minister wants.
That is why the Minister is one of the forces of light. We modernisers must fight together against the reactionary elements on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are on the same side in this. That is what the whole debate is about: our two parties are at one on the issue, and we are fighting a rearguard action against the Liberal Democrats, because they do not seem to understand what is going on in the real world. They are still living in a world in which the local authority knows best. It does not. Parents know best, and that is why the amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has been speaking are so worth while.

Jacqui Smith: Let me gather together the remaining scraps of my career following the words of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). We have had a very good debate on the amendments and clause 7—quite rightly, because the clause and this part of the Bill are fundamental to the development of our overall policy to raise standards by introducing a new relationship between schools, local authorities, parents and central Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North that this is not a debate about centralism versus localism. It is a debate about how we envisage the new role of the local authority, building on the Government’s work in the “Every Child Matters” change for children programme, the 10-year child care strategy, the “Youth Matters” Green Paper and our 14-to-19 reforms. They all reflect the idea of the local authority as strategic planner and commissioner—a role, interestingly enough, that the hon. Member for Brent, East argued strongly for during debate on clause 6.

Sarah Teather: The Minister will recall that I said that local authorities should have both roles. My argument now is that we should have both roles for schools as well.

Jacqui Smith: That is the case, and it will continue to be the case after the passage of the Bill. The point, though, is that in keeping with the argument that we have made generally about local government, the schools White Paper said that we now need to extend that role to the school system, building on existing good practice in many local authorities.
The intention of the Bill is to do precisely that. During debate not just on clause 7 but on previous clauses, we have discussed how local authorities will increasingly be commissioners of education, acting as the champions of pupils and parents, promoting choice and diversity and safeguarding and assuring quality. This part of the Bill puts more flesh on the bones by making specific provision for opening and closing schools and making changes to them. The arrangements will put in place a new framework to consolidate the local authority’s role as commissioner of provision and open up opportunities for other providers to supply the necessary places.
I move to the specifics of the amendments. Amendment No. 26, which is linked to amendment No. 21, aims to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give consent for a local authority to publish proposals for a community school as part of the competition. Part of this debate has been about the history of the development of that policy from the point at which we published the White Paper. We said that in keeping the local authorities’ commissioner role, it was appropriate that no more community schools be established.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham pointed out, since then, as we have taken forward the proposals, we have listened carefully to representations from hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friends—and incidentally to representations from the cross-party, Conservative-dominated, Local Government Association. [Interruption.] Lord Sandy indeed. We now agree that, in some circumstances, a new community school might make sense.

Nick Gibb: Can the Minister assure the Committee therefore that had there not been an impending Labour rebellion, that concession would not have been made?

Jacqui Smith: It is not a case of rebellion. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, it is a case of our publishing a White Paper and responding to the subsequent representations. That is how sensible Governments behave.
Clause 7 allows local authorities to enter a community school into a competition with the consent of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West have asked me to give a bit more detail about the criteria that the Secretary of State would use. It is worth reminding the Committee—particularly the hon. Gentleman, given his question—that on Second Reading, the Secretary of State agreed that there should be further discussion in Committee about the criteria for allowing a community school to be entered into a competition, and about whether those criteria should be set out in legislation.
My right hon. Friend and I are women of our word, which is why, having given further thought to the matter, I can give the Committee more information about the way in which we want the system to work. We want to bring clarity and transparency into the system, and remove some of the uncertainty about when a community school can be entered into a competition. That is why on Report we will bring forward amendments that will require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify criteria that when met would allow local authorities to enter a community school into a competition without the need for explicit consent, and set out in the Bill the issues with which such tests should be concerned, such as the educational standards and diversity of existing schools in the authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch rightly identified those as important elements of good local authorities, which we should be encouraging. Regulations will also set out criteria and tests that will debar some local authorities from entering a community school into a competition completely. We shall provide illustrative regulations for that.
Let me say a little more about those tests. As I said, we want to give certainty and reassurance to high-performing local authorities with diverse provision, but we also want to demonstrate to the weakest and least diverse authorities that they should open up opportunities to other providers in order to drive up school standards. The regulations will allow local authorities with an annual performance assessment of 4—the highest score—to enter a community school into a competition automatically, without the need for the Secretary of State’s consent. We should trust those high-performing local authorities to decide what type of school would best serve the needs of their communities. Currently, there are 11 local authorities with an APA of 4.
For reasons that I outlined, three groups of local authorities will not be permitted to propose a community school: local authorities with an APA of 1, which are those with the poorest performance in children’s services; local authorities with an APA of 2 and in which less than 15 per cent. of schools are foundation or voluntary schools; and local authorities with an APA of 2 and more than 15 per cent. of schools in Ofsted category 4—in other words, badly-performing authorities that either have a large proportion of schools that are failing or have low levels of diversity.
Incidentally, hon. Members will note that the requirement to have 15 per cent. foundation and voluntary schools is rather more stringent than the requirement for 10 per cent. of places to be provided by trust or voluntary schools or academies, as was envisaged by amendment No. 88 to clause 2, tabled by Opposition Members. We think there should be at least 15 per cent. of such schools before community schools are allowed in those authorities.
The remaining 130 local authorities will be able to enter a competition with the Secretary of State’s consent.
Local authorities that do not fall into the criteria set by the regulations will, as the Bill now provides, be able to seek the Secretary of State’s consent to enter a competition. The Secretary of State will of course decide each case on its individual merits, but I can assure my hon. Friends that there will be no automatic presumption against a new community school and that my right hon. Friend will use objective criteria to inform her decisions. Those criteria will include the openness of the local authority to new providers, its track record in promoting diversity, and standards in local schools and the local authority overall.
Although the Secretary of State would consider every case on its merits, for guidance, and for the Committee’s information, I can say that she would generally expect to approve requests from local authorities to enter a community school into a competition in the case of local authorities with a rating of 3 in the most recent CPA/APA and with a lower than average percentage of schools in Ofsted category 4, or with a higher than average percentage of voluntary and foundation schools and academies. Some 90 authorities would fall into that category.
We think that those are fair and clear criteria that provide an incentive for local authorities to improve educational standards and to increase diversity in their provision. It is also worth emphasising that in approving the request for an authority to publish proposals for a community school in a competition, we will not be giving a green light for the new school to be a community school. In those circumstances, the schools adjudicator will make the final decision on whether the proposals should be approved. The adjudicator will consider the authorities’ proposals and any others that have been submitted by other bodies, and will have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That will emphasise the need to consider all the proposals on their merits and to make a judgment on which proposals will best meet the needs of the area and the community and contribute to high educational standards.
We have made clear our commitment to choice and diversity through this clause and our approach to reform. We hope that many new providers will come forward in response to the invitation to bid in a competition. Where that is not the case or the authority has a clear idea for a school that it wishes to propose, it is right that it should be able to do so. We think that the arrangements will strike the right balance between encouraging a more diverse and responsive system and allowing continued close local authority involvement when there are particular reasons for that.

David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend clarify one set of circumstances? Does she accept that, in the case of a large local authority that included a considerable number of medium-sized towns with only one school, one of the unintended consequences of extending the diversity of the authority’s overall provision could be to reduce the diversity within a given catchment area? For example, if a community school in difficulties was the only school serving a town and had to be replaced by either a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school, that would reduce the freedom of choice for some parents who would rather choose a secular school than a faith school. How would that problem be managed? A large number of authorities could be in precisely that position.

Jacqui Smith: In the criteria that I have spelled out, the trump criterion is the annual performance assessment of the local authority. The standards and quality of the local authority come first: if it is 4 or 3 and has few failing schools, it will be able to propose a community school in a competition regardless of levels of diversity. If it is less well performing, such factors will be more important. The case that my hon. Friend made was more about the choice between a faith school and a non-faith school than about that between a community school and a non-community school. In a competition, that might be one of the factors on which representations are made by parents for consideration, and something that the local authority might want to bear in mind—assuming that it has not entered the competition itself—in deciding between proposals. It is a reasonable representation to make, and a reasonable factor to be borne in mind by a local authority in such circumstances.

David Chaytor: To pursue that point, is my right hon. Friend saying that in the course of the judging of the competition, there will be a process in which parents will be able to express their views on the different proposals that are put forward?

Jacqui Smith: That is precisely where I was leading to.

Robert Wilson: May I confirm what the Minister just said, because I may have misheard her? Did she say that there are circumstances in which a local education authority will be able to propose a new school without competition from anywhere else?

Jacqui Smith: No, that is not what I said. There are such circumstances, but they relate to clause 9. I was outlining the criteria that the Secretary of State would bear in mind in determining whether a local authority could enter a community school into a competition, so I spoke in the context of the competition provisions of clause 7. Permission to enter a community school into a competition is not endorsement of that school but acceptance that it may take part in the competition. The competition would, of course, be judged by the adjudicator in those circumstances.

Robert Wilson: Can the Minister foresee any circumstances in which a competition may not take place and therefore a community school may be allowed to go forward?

Jacqui Smith: Not only can I foresee them but clause 9 is about those circumstances, so we will discuss them when we come to that clause.
On the point about parental demand, it is important that parental demand and support for a new community school, as distinct from a new school in general, be fully taken into account. However, we think that, in judging a competition, the adjudicator—or the local authority, if it has not entered the competition—is best placed to consider that. In other words, parental demand and parental views are best exercised in influencing the decision about the result of the competition rather than that about the entrants to it. I shall explain in some detail how I think that should operate.

Nick Gibb: As I understand it, the Minister has said that under the new guidance, 101 authorities will be able to set up a community school should they wish to do so, and about 73 either will not or probably will not, because they are in categories that will not be allowed to set them up. What is her estimate, as an experienced Minister, of the likelihood of the 101 authorities allowing new schools to be set up through competition rather than setting up community schools? Will they go for the community schools or will they use the provisions of clause 7, notwithstanding the fact that she is now saying they can set up community schools?

Jacqui Smith: Let me be clear: I did not say that the criteria that I outlined were criteria for local authorities to set up community schools. They are criteria allowing local authorities to enter into the competition that is provided for in clause 7.
Given everything that we said in relation to clauses 1, 2 and 3, I hope that local authorities will take what I think is the strong strategic role of commissioner—that they will lay down the terms of the competition, encourage new providers to come forward, and use their abilities to judge between the new providers. That is what I would prefer to see in future, but I also believe—not least because of the representations that we have received and the arguments made about choice, diversity and standards—that there might be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a local authority to enter a community school in a competition. Those circumstances would be defined by the criteria that I have just outlined.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It was extremely helpful and encouraging. Will she commit to putting that exhortation into guidance for local authorities, so that they too understand the Government’s intention?

Jacqui Smith: I think that clause 2 is that exhortation. All our debate was about that point, and at the beginning of my contribution I said that we envisage the local authority’s new role as that of commissioner, encouraging new provision in the system. That was the exhortation, if exhortation is needed.
I shall deal with amendment No. 66 before returning to the important issue of parents’ and others’ role in the process. As we have heard, the amendment would allow local authorities to publish their own proposals for community schools as part of the competition without the consent of the Secretary of State and without satisfying any of the criteria that I have outlined. I explained fully how and why we will determine whether a local authority will be able to make a proposal for a community school in a competition, what the criteria are and, more fundamentally, what that implies about the new role of the local authority.
We find ourselves occupying a sort of third way between those who think that it should not be possible, whatever the circumstances, for local authorities to enter community schools into competitions and those who think that the local authorities’ role should not change at all and that the status quo should prevail. That makes me think that we have got it just about right, but of course I prefer to defend our proposals on their intrinsic merits rather than merely on the ground that they are the third way.
I reiterate that we want local authorities to move decisively into a commissioning role. We want to open up opportunities for new providers and to ensure that the local authority does not have a de facto veto on new providers by making it difficult for them to compete against the predominant provider in an area. We also recognise, however, that it will sometimes make sense for a local authority to enter a community school into a competition.
Amendment No. 76 would limit the Secretary of State’s power to allow a local authority to publish proposals for a new community or community special school unless it could provide evidence that such a school would lead to better results. Although I welcome hon. Members’ commitment to secure measures focused on raising standards, I think that the proposal is unnecessary and impossible to implement and would almost certainly lead to unnecessary wrangling and delay.
In setting out the criteria, I have focused not only on their being fair and objective but on the local authority’s contribution in its overall function of raising standards and in raising standards of the schools in its area. The criteria are not speculative and difficult to prove like the requirements proposed in the amendment. Although I have some sympathy with the amendment’s objective, I hope that hon. Members will feel able not to press it, given my assurances concerning the criteria for the Secretary of State’s consent.
Speaking to amendments Nos. 180 and 182, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North expressed some important arguments about the role of parents and emphasised our desire to develop a new more responsive relationship between the local authority role and consideration of the views of the broad swathe of parents in an area, and how that links to the relationship with schools. I understand why my hon. Friend wishes parents to have a significant voice in such matters. We must find a balance between central Government, local government, and parents and others with an interest in education provision.
I hope to reassure my hon. Friends by spelling out the way in which we envisage the process working and the role that parents will have at different stages. Before publishing an invitation for proposals in a competition, a local authority must consult widely in the area. Indeed, before the required statutory consultation on the competition, the authority might wish to consult on a range of possible options to meet the need for places in the area. It would certainly make sense for it particularly to seek the views of parents on its plans. Parents’ views are also built into competition arrangements at a later stage, when the authority is required to organise at least one public meeting to inform the public of the proposals received and the arrangements for making objections and comments.

Sarah Teather: May I take the Minister back to the circumstances in which local authorities would not be allowed to enter the competition to provide a community school? Let us suppose that a competition was held for a school in, say, a new estate and no outside competitors came forward? Would the area be left without a school because the local authority was not allowed to step in?

Jacqui Smith: No, because, as we made clear in the White Paper, the local authority would always have the fall-back position of being able to propose a foundation school within the area. There would be no possibility of there being a community without a school. The local authority has the important role of consulting parents and others about the proposals before their publication.
Amendment No. 182 would specifically require a ballot of parents in the area, with majority support required before a proposal in a competition could be considered further. Let me explain how the system should work and the role that parents will have. Clause 8 provides that before the local authority publishes its invitation to make proposals in a competition, it must consult appropriate persons, having regard to guidance from the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, a wide range of stakeholders will probably have an interest in the proposals. The guidance makes it clear that parents must be consulted, but so should schools that are to be closed as part of a reorganisation, primary schools whose pupils would move on to a proposed secondary school, other local authorities, school staff, local dioceses, the learning and skills council, district and parish councils and relevant Members of Parliament. The views of all those individuals and bodies are important and will be taken into account before the specification for the necessary school in an area is finalised.
In addition, paragraph 5 of schedule 2 provides that regulations may make provision for objections and comments on the proposals when they are published. At that point, as I said earlier, it would be appropriate for the local authority to ensure that public meetings are held so that the proposals can be considered. The illustrative regulations that have been made available to the Committee show that people may object to or comment on the proposals, as happens now. The decision makers—the local authority or the adjudicator—will have to take any comments or objections into account when considering the proposals and will need to satisfy themselves that proper consultation took place.
The arrangements give ample opportunity for all concerned to make their views known to the local authority that is holding the competition, anyone thinking of bringing forward proposals, and those who will be deciding the competition themselves. I do not think therefore that there is a need to introduce expensive and cumbersome procedures such as a local ballet. In fact, I agree with what my hon. Friend said on Tuesday, that:
“The question is to what extent campaigns by comparatively small number of parents are representative of the parent body as a whole. It seems that the only way to get an answer to that question is through the collective voice of the people of Bury, North and of Bury, South in the municipal elections on 4 May.”
He went on to say:
“It is important to support the normal procedures of democracy rather than invent devious ways to subvert them.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 18 April 2006; c. 269.]
I think that he is absolutely right.

David Chaytor: Let me make two quick points. First, if amendment No. 180 were to be accepted by the Government, it would be difficult for the Conservatives to vote against it because it is precisely the mechanism that they proposed in the Education Reform Act 1988, by which people would have had to vote annually on whether to become a grant-maintained school. Secondly, amendment No. 180 is subtle because it does not allow parents to subvert the democratically expressed wish of the local authority, but merely gives parents the opportunity to endorse the decision already taken by that authority.

Jacqui Smith: I do not doubt that my hon. Friend’s amendments are extremely subtle. However, I have spelled out the subtleties and practicalities in the way in which we expect parents and others to be consulted both before the publication of the competition proposals, and on the judgment on those proposals.
The provisions show that the proposals will be considered properly, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that his amendments are therefore not needed. It is absolutely right that I have had this opportunity to spell out the important role that local parents and other stakeholders will have.
I have tried to explain why I think that the Bill as drafted achieves the right balance, including the clarification that I hope that I have been able to give about the criteria that we will use for allowing or not allowing local authorities to enter community schools into competitions. The process will encourage a more diverse and dynamic education system while allowing the possibility of new community schools where the case is sufficiently strong. On that basis, I invite all hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Nick Gibb: This has been a good and thorough debate on an important set of amendments. We have had important new information from the Minister that is very welcome—up to a point.
The Liberals seem to blame me for the original vision that the Government had for the Bill. All our amendments would do is restore to the Bill the Government’s original vision. The Prime Minister said: 
“We need to see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner”.
That is what the amendments would do. On page 116, the White Paper—I did not write it, the Government did—says:
“We will also remove the right for local authorities to publish their own proposals for the establishment of new community schools.”
That was the vision in the White Paper, and that is what the amendments seek to do.
If I may say so, it is slightly disingenuous of the Minister to say that the Government consulted and listened to representations. In reality, those concessions were made to Labour rebels in the face of a possible defeat. They did not need to make those concessions, which contradicted their own judgment, and in the end did not even succeed in quelling the rebellion. We could have had a much stronger Bill. The Bill would still have received a majority of 343 if the Government had not made those concessions and stuck to the original vision in the White Paper.
The Minister made some important announcements on the Secretary of State’s veto on local authorities proposing new community schools. We shall look in detail at those provisions when they are published. On the face of it, from what the Minister has said, they appear to reflect the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s majority report, when they said
“Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school that will command the support of parents, the Secretary of State will not normally intervene.”
The Minister has set out several categories of local authorities that will, in principle, be able to propose a community school as part of the competition arrangements and groups of local authorities that will not. She said that local authorities with an APA of 4 will automatically be barred from so doing—

Jacqui Smith: No. Four is the best score.

Nick Gibb: Yes—sorry. Authorities with that score will automatically be allowed to propose a community school if they wish. Three groups of local authorities will not be allowed to do so: those with an APA of 1; those with an APA of 2Â if less than 15 per cent. of schools in their area are foundation or voluntary schools; and those with an APA of 2 if 15 per cent. or more of their schools are Ofsted category 4. From my calculations, there appear to be 32 local authorities or thereabouts in that category. It would be helpful if the Government published lists of the local authorities in question. I shall table a parliamentary question asking the Government to do so. We should know who they are and what other action has been taken to deal with them. There is another list of 30 local authorities that will probably not be able to propose a community school within the competition arrangements under clause 7.
It would be a pity if the provisions turn out to be concessions to the rebels when we look at them in more detail, but I am pleased that the worst-performing local authorities will not be able to propose a community school. I also welcome the Minister’s saying that she hopes and expects that local authorities will use the competition provisions of clause 7 and invite and encourage new providers to propose schools in the local authority area, and that the ability to propose a new community school will be the exception, rather than the rule. We will monitor the implementation of these provisions once clause 7 is implemented.
Finally, amendment No. 26 expresses an important point of principle. It returns the Bill to the original vision of the White Paper and turns into law what we all know to be the genuine judgment of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister about what is in the best interests of this country. In view of its importance, we shall press for a Division.

Sarah Teather: The presence of the Secretary of State’s veto in the clause is a fundamental point of principle. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will table amendments on Report that at least increase the transparency of the Secretary of State’s use of the veto. Nevertheless, it will remain in the Bill, which is not good enough.
Once the Government have set up the 200 academies that they say they would like to set up, they will become the largest maintaining authority in England. This is a thoroughly centralising measure that allows them to be the largest maintaining authority and have a veto that will effectively overrule local decision making on the kind of provision that people want. That is not acceptable to the Liberal Democrats as a localist party. We shall push this matter to a vote, because it is a fundamental point of principle.
The Minister quoted back at the hon. Member for Bury, North a point that he made in an earlier sitting—that the best decision maker is the collective voice at the ballot box. That is our point, too. The best decision maker in this case is the collective voice at the ballot box, which is why we should leave it to local authorities to decide. We will press amendment No. 66 to a vote.

David Chaytor: In view of the Minister’s explanation and the promise of further amendments on Report on the exact criteria that will be used for the exercise of the veto, I shall not press amendments Nos. 180 and 182 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in clause 7, page 7, line 16, leave out
‘with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.—[Sarah Teather.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived.

Frank Cook: I have been fairly tolerant in allowing a degree of latitude in the discussion of the various aspects of clause 7, so I think it only fair to alert the Committee to the fact that anybody seeking to make comments of a stand part nature would be wise to make them in this debate, because I do not want to flog a dead horse.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 7, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Secretary of State may by order suspend the operation of this section in relation to invitations by local education authorities of proposals for the establishment of an Academy during such period as may be appropriate for the evaluation of the success or otherwise of Academies in achieving high standards.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in schedule 2, page 114, line 39, at end insert—
‘(7) In the case of the consideration by a local education authority of proposals for the establishment of an Academy made pursuant to a notice under section 7 the authority shall in particular have regard to the effect which the establishment of such a school would have on the efficient and effective provision of education at maintained schools in its area.'.
No. 152, in schedule 2, page 114, line 39, at end insert—
‘(7) In the case of the consideration by a local education authority of proposals for the establishment of an Academy made pursuant to a notice under section 7, no inducement, whether in the form of additional grant or otherwise, may be offered to the authority by the Secretary of State so as to influence the decision to be taken by the authority concerned.'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments essentially enable us to debate academies under the clause. I will also make some remarks, as you have asked me to, Mr. Cook, about the clause as a whole. Given the previous vote, we would like to vote against clause stand part.

Frank Cook: Order. To correct the hon. Lady, I did not ask her to make such remarks, I just alerted her to the fact that if she wanted to make them, she ought to do it now.

Sarah Teather: Understood, Mr. Cook. I shall make those remarks at the end of my speech.
The Education and Skills Committee reported on academies in March 2005. Its report questioned whether the average extra £7,000 per pupil was delivering value for money and concluded that the programme should be halted pending a proper evaluation. Our amendment would enable the Government to do that if they choose—suspend the further provision of academies subject to an evaluation. It would not force the Government to do so; it is merely an enabling amendment.
The Select Committee found that the Government seemed to be proposing a major expansion of a largely untested scheme. It found that academies have mixed academic results in terms of both improvement and actual results, which we discussed earlier in this debate. The Government argue that they need a lot more time to demonstrate that improvements are occurring under the new scheme. However, they argue at the same time that it is so urgent and vital to improve standards that we must push on with it. They cannot make both arguments concurrently.
Professor Stephen Gorard of York University, who was quoted by the Select Committee, felt that standards had been raised by changing intake. We were discussing that point just a few moments ago. He found that only one of the early academies was still serving the most disadvantaged pupils in the area. Given that the whole point of the academy scheme was to serve the most disadvantaged pupils, that is a matter for some concern. It is less of a concern in academies that replace existing failing schools, but the Committee thinks that setting up new schools in an area will lead to concerns about cherry-picking from other schools.
Amendment No. 70 addresses a number of concerns with an impact on other schools, particularly the question whether academies are excluding more young people, manipulating their intake or their pupils by excluding the most difficult. The Department’s figures show that in proportion to the school population twice as many pupils are excluded from academies as from other schools. More worryingly, they also show that twice as many children with special educational needs are excluded from academies than from other schools. That is of particular concern. In earlier debates, we have discussed the vulnerability of young people with special educational needs and the necessity of ensuring that schools are flexible and sensitive enough to deal with those issues. Given the Department’s statistics, I feel that it is a cause for considerable concern.
A number of specifics are mentioned. The King’s academy in Middlesbrough, for example, seems to suspend or exclude 10 times as many students as the average school in the area. Ofsted found that the number of exclusions in West London academy was similarly high.
Academies are not bound by Government guidance on exclusions. For example, an independent appeals procedure is not required: appeals are allowed only if the school wishes, and they are made to members of the governing body rather than externally. Also, academies do not lose money when children are excluded as other schools in the system do. When pupils are excluded from community schools, the schools face a financial penalty. When academy students are excluded, the academy is allowed to keep the money for that financial year.
That means that the playing field is not level. Many people have expressed concerns that the new schools are not accepting their fair share of difficult pupils. The local authority ends up accepting the pupils excluded from other schools who fall through the net, and not everybody has a fair chance to attend the school that they choose.

Angela Smith: Does the hon. Lady concede that it is perfectly possible for a good local authority to reach an agreement with the sponsors of an academy to share excluded pupils, just as it does with its community schools? Does that not explain why, initially, the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield instigated the city academy proposals for that city?

Phil Hope: Both ofthem.

Sarah Teather: I will respond to that in a minute. The hon. Ladymakes a good point. My point was that the schools are not bound to doas she suggests. Given that those schools have a financial incentive ifstudents are excluded, but that community schools have a financialdisincentive, that is not a level playingfield.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosityin giving way. Is it not also the case that, in putting forwardproposals for a new school, a good local authority might well decidethat one of the criteria for winning a competition should be to ensure that allvulnerable children, indeed all children in a city or other localauthority area, will be treatedequitably?

Sarah Teather: Among the points that we will need to considerwhen we see the Government’s new proposals on trust schools willbe who may or may not form trusts, and what criteria may be applied incompetitions.
On thelast of the amendments, we have argued that no financial incentiveshould be given to local authorities to force them to provideacademies. In Brent, which has a number of extremely good local schoolsthat perform well when inspected by Ofsted, a new academy is likely tobe built just outside my constituency. As an hon. Member in thatborough, I share local schools’ irritation that a brand newschool is to be given an awful lot of money, while they are doing verywell despite struggling against the backdrop of great disadvantage, andteaching in buildings that have been “temporary” for 30years.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the hon. Lady giveway?

Sarah Teather: In a moment. Those schools are teaching inclassrooms that have been temporary for the whole of my life, yet thereis no new money coming to them forrebuilding.

Jacqui Smith: You must be joking.

Sarah Teather: There is no money. The borough has not beenallocated new “building schools for the future” money formany years, so it cannot rebuild those schools. They have been stuckwith temporary buildings for a considerabletime.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Lady is being generous in takinginterventions. If academies are so bad, what advice is she, as theofficial Liberal Democrat spokesperson on education, giving to LiberalDemocrat-controlled Stockport council, which is actively pursuing a newacademy in one of the most deprived parts of theborough?

Sarah Teather: Let me come on to that point now. Our amendmentsays that there should be no inducement, financial orother—perhaps we should include peerages while we are talkingabout that—to provide an academy. Local authorities should beallowed the flexibility to choose what kind of school they willprovide.

Meg Hillier: Will the hon. Lady giveway?

Sarah Teather: Let me finish. Everyone is getting veryexcited.
A number oflocal authorities have alleged that the Government have threatened towithhold funding from “building schools for the future”unless they provide an academy within their mix of schools. I know thatthe Secretary of State denies that, but it has been stated fairlyconsistently. Boroughs complain that their hands are tied and that they have not been given freedom of choice as to whatkind of schools they should provide.
Let me quote twoexamples. Sunderland city council accused the Government of withholding“building schools for the future” money unless it agreedto provide an academy, and Darlington city council also claimed thatsuch money would not be quickly forthcoming unless it built an academy.The problem is that such statements are made time and again. ThenLabour Members ask why, if it is not an efficient use of resources andthe Government should consider other options, local authorities goagainst the national argument. We have just heard why that happens:pressure is put on them to go down one route. They are not given thefreedom to choose what is suitable for their local area, and they arealso concerned because they have been told that money for repairs willbe withheld. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister willrespond to thosepoints.
Let me makesome general remarks about the clause. We stated that the Secretary ofState’s veto was for us such an important matter of principlethat we would vote against the clause. Given that our concerns have notbeen addressed, we will do so. This is such an important point ofprinciple that we are not prepared to let the clause go through withthat provision remaining in theBill.

Annette Brooke: I wish to make afew brief comments in support of the amendments in my name and those ofmy hon.Friends.

Frank Cook: Order. Make them a little more loudly,please.

Annette Brooke: I do apologise, Mr.Cook.
Without beingrepetitive, I say to the Committee that the amendments raise some basicpoints and questions. The lead amendment would allow the Secretary ofState to suspend the establishment of new academies while their overallsuccess is being evaluated.
The question of what to doabout underperforming and, in particular, failing, schools has been themain point of debate on this clause. Clearly, action must be taken whena school is failing, for which there might be a whole host of reasons.Often, leadership is a contributing factor, but there are likely to bemany others. I have sympathy with the points that have been made. Whenyoungsters are losing out, we need to do something dramatic such asclose certain schools and start afresh. The question is: how do westart afresh? We will need to establish in those schools a new ethos,pride and esteem, and strong leadership. That isobvious.
The schoolsin my constituency that do not perform as well as some of the othersoften lack funding, and have lacked it for a long time. Often thatoccurs when a school falls under a bigger authority that covers a mixof urban and rural areas. As a result, some schools are very neglected.All of those things contributed to underperformance and, ultimately,failure.
We need allof those ingredients. The amount of money that is being put intoacademies, in one way or another, is a welcome injection. Obviously,that could have been invested elsewhere. For instance, it would be interesting ifwe could have a controlled experiment in which a community school isreopened, with the same level of funds and the freedoms given in thecurriculum, to see whether we need total detachment from the localauthority.
If we lookat the various academies, it is easy to see that there are differentperceptions of the analyses of the results so far. It is reasonable tosay that there are mixed results from academies that have been inbusiness long enough to have been assessed. For instance, Unity cityacademy has had its year already in which to turn round, but communityschools are being told, “It’s easy, you can turn round within a year, or at least make progress.” It is important thatwe get the principles of what is needed—good leadership andresponsible resourcing—without running into structuralsituations, and arguing that one structure is better thananother.
We have heardfrom my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East that, statistically,exclusion rates tend to be high in failing schools, which one mightexpect given the nature of those schools, but not to such an extent. Onthe lack of a level playing field as regards financing, will thepriority given to children in care apply to academies? I should like toask the Minister about that, because it is important that we have theequality of access about which we are all concerned. It is notunreasonable to ensure that there is a clear and proper, unbiasedevaluation ofacademies.
Moving onto the third amendment in the group, my hon. Friend made a strong pointabout the fact that there has not necessarily been freedom of choice.As a previous chairman of education, I know that people make thechoices and take the ways forward that are best for the children undertheir authority, and those choices are clearly influenced by what is onoffer. They have to do the very best. However, if there is a gravedistortion of choices from Whitehall, perhaps we are not getting thebest outcomes. There is an initial benefit with the cash injection, butare we really getting to delivery? That is how the amendments aboutwhich we are talking linktogether.
There arelots of questions about academies. I hope that, for the youngpeople’s sake, the academies will be successful. At the veryleast, the jury is out. I urge the Minister not to rush along the routeof diverting further resources and effort through political tinkeringfrom Whitehall, which is what happens when people are dishing money outand influencingchoices.
It isimportant that we know what we are doing, give the best possibleencouragement to turn schools round and allow long-term sustainableimprovements to be generated. I fear that we will not see any moderateimprovements sustained. Inevitably, there is newness, excitement, extramoney and opportunities in academies, including freedom with thecurriculum, but we have to match those things and do what is best forour young people. I suggest, yet again, that the jury is out. Why rushahead with academies in thesecircumstances?

Nick Gibb: The amendments and the comments of the hon. Memberfor Brent, East firmly establish the Liberal Democrats’opposition to the autonomy and independence that characterises the concept of the academy school. Itseems as though the localism enshrined in Liberal philosophy extendsonly to local manifestations of the state sector bureaucracies, notdown to the level of the localschool.
The academyprogramme is in its early stages, but that does not mean that we shouldhalt it, as the amendment states. It is a pity that my hon. Friend theMember for Gainsborough, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee,has stepped out of the room for a moment because I can tell theCommittee that the National Audit Office says, at paragraph 2.49 of itsreport, “Improving poorly performing schools inEngland”:
“Thoughthese are early results for academies, there are signs of continuingimprovement. The 2004 Key Stage 3 test results for 14-year olds atacademies improved faster than the national average: 9 per cent inEnglish and mathematics compared with a national average improvement of6 and 7 per cent in English and mathematicsrespectively.”
PriceWaterhouseCooperssecond annual report on academy evaluationsays:
“The mostrecent high-level performance information shows that of 11 academieswhich were open in 2004, six have improved their GCSEperformance”
at five ormore A* to C grades
“andfive have not. These results suggest a rather mixed picture ofperformance across open academies. However, when considering thesefigures, it is important to note that of these 11 academies, eight hadonly been open for one year. In these academies, the pupils to whom theGCSE results relate were therefore taught for four years in thepredecessor schools and only two and a half terms in the newacademy.”
Themost interesting aspect of PriceWaterhouseCoopers report is how theethos of academies has changed expectations. Paragraph 3.21 on page 19states:
“A veryclear and significant finding from the early research is that theredoes seem to be a significant difference in the learning culture in newAcademies compared to their predecessors. For example, 8 out of 10pupils in the survey said that ‘the teachers at this Academyreally believe that all pupils can achieve’, and similar numbersof staff surveyed said ‘staff at this Academy believe that allpupils can achieve regardless of their socialbackground’”.
The best databy which to determine whether academies are likely to succeed are thoserelating to city technology colleges, which are similar in structure toacademies. They have been open for many years, so they provide good anduseful data. In 2004-05, 65.9 per cent. of pupils at city technologycolleges achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, includingEnglish and maths, compared with just 38 per cent. in communityschools. In an interesting parliamentary answer from the Minister on 6April, it is clear that city technology colleges have the highestachievement rate among those on free schoolmeals.
Theproportion of pupils receiving free school meals who achieved five ormore GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, was 16.8 percent. for community schools in 2004-05. That figure increased to 20.4per cent. for foundation schools and to 23.7 per cent. for voluntaryaided schools. However, the proportion of pupils receiving free schoolmeals who achieved five or more GCSE at grades A* to C in city technology colleges was astaggering 58.3 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of pupils withspecial educational needs who achieved five or more good GCSEs,including English and maths, was 6.7 per cent. at community schools and36.2 per cent. at city technologycolleges.

Sarah Teather: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the extramoney per pupil might have a large influence on the increase instandards?

Nick Gibb: Well, I am not sure that there is extra money forpupils. Sometimes, we must consider such matters with an open mind. Weshould visit the schools and see what is going on. It is clear thatthey have a different approach to education from the community schoolsthat they have replaced, which is how they have achieved their results.It is easy to look around for other reasons why the schools areachieving, whether it is because of their intake, the money or the factthat they are new buildings designed by Lord Foster or whatever, butthe actual reason is the ethos of the schools that have beenestablished.
Given thesimilarities in structure between CTCs and academies, we should payheed to such data when debating the structure of schools that webelieve to be the most beneficial for raising standards. I have visitedtwo city technology colleges so far. The ADT college in Wandsworthtakes a banded intake. Last year, 70 per cent. of its pupils achievedfive or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. The Thomas Telford school inTelford also takes a banded intake, but it is based on the nationaldata of the range of abilities. At that school, 100 per cent. of pupilsachieved 12 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, and that 100 per cent.figure includes English andmaths.
As we wouldexpect from a national banded intake, the school’s proportion ofchildren who are entitled to free school meals, 11 per cent., issimilar to the national average of 14 per cent. Something is happeningat Thomas Telford that is not happening in other schools with similarintakes; otherwise the national average would be 100 per cent., as itshould be if what is happening at the Thomas Telford school wasreplicated throughout thecountry.
Those schoolsshow how independence and autonomy—the hallmarks ofacademies—can help to deliver a high quality of education. Someacademies have not so far achieved the level of excellence of citytechnology colleges, but that has partly been due to the programmebeing in its early stages. However, the truth is that academies can gowrong when the wrong people are appointed as heads or when untried anduntested experiments are inflicted on a school and its pupils. Thoseare often the same reasons why many community schools fail. That is whyI believe that we need to focus not only on structuralreform—important though that is—but on what actuallyhappens in theclassroom.
Let usconsider the Unity city academy in Middlesbrough, referred to by thehon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Only 12 ofthe 200 pupils taking their GCSEs there achieved a grade C in maths andEnglish, compared with 17 pupils at the two predecessor schools. Thosefigures— both those for the previous schools and those for the academy—aretotallyunacceptable.
Accordingto The Sunday Times of 19 March:
“When Unity opened in2002 the new head, Eddie Brady, promised a revolution in learning thatwould ‘discard the Victorian-style chalk and talk’ andput in place ‘learning sessions’ taken by‘learningfacilitators’.”
Irefer hon. Members back to the points I made under clause 1 aboutreplacing teaching with learnacy; here we see another example inpractice. The article went on tosay:
“Old-stylehistory and science were to be replaced by ‘concepts’taught as topics, and teachers were told to adjust their styles tocater for whether children were ‘kinesthetic, visual orauditory’learners.
Since then,Unity has been identified as a ‘failing school’ by theOffice for Standards in Education...the government has had to bailout its £1.5m debts and the education department has had toappoint and pay for a ‘trouble-shooter’ to deal with theacademy’s problems... Brady resigned at the end of2004”.
In other words,when problems arise, they are not to do with the structure ofacademies; it is the wrong pedagogical approach that leads schools,whatever their structure, to fail or underperform.
Another academy referred to inthe article—the West London academy in Ealing, sponsored by AlecReed, founder of the recruitment company Reed Executive—failedfor similar reasons. The Sunday Timessays:
“Itspupils are taught in a £37m school designed by Lord Foster.Pupils did not move between classrooms but stayed in one room whileteachers came to them. The idea, according to Alastair Falk, then headteacher, was to give pupils ‘real ownership of their part of theschool’.
Oneformer teacher at West London, who did not wish to be named, said thishad come true: ‘The children took control of the classrooms andyou felt like an intruder. Bullies would be operating on the weakerchildren as the class waited for their subject teacher toarrive.’...The system was scrapped by the new headappointed lastNovember.”

Annette Brooke: I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Would he agree that, when a school runs into such problems, intervention at the earliest possible time is crucial? In the case of academies, we shall have to see whether that intervention is flexible enough when it comes from the Department for Education and Skills, or whether a good local authority might have picked up the problem sooner.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but in all the cases that I cited, the head was replaced pretty rapidly. I am aware of community schools where heads languish, year after year, producing poor results, and where nothing is done by the local authorities. The structure of academies is more likely to lead to early intervention, because those who have put their money and their reputation on the line do not want the academies to fail. They will take action, probably earlier than many local authorities would.
It is a pity that the head of the school in Ealing had not researched the approach taken by the best-performing schools before embarking on his damaging experiment. Last year, at the Wellington school in Trafford, a secondary modern school, 73 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. When English and maths are included, the figure is 66 per cent. None of those figures include GNVQs. That school ensures that every teacher has ownership of their own classroom, which also acts as the teacher’s office, to which he or she can retreat to prepare lessons, and work after school hours and in free periods. Wellington school is immaculate. Behaviour there is exemplary and standards are extremely high.
Structures are important, but so too are the issues that relate to best practice and to eschewing ideology, whether of the right or left. It is ideology that has been so damaging to our education system over the past 40 years, and continues to be damaging in too many of our schools.
With regard to amendment No. 152 and the proposal to prohibit financial incentives from the DFES to encourage the establishment of academies, I agree with the Minister when she says that there are no such incentives other than the “building schools for the future” programme, which will eventually apply to all schools in the country. She will accept that academies will of course have access to the capital funds provided by the sponsoring business or organisation, but such funds would presumably be available to schools that acquire a foundation. Will the Minister clarify that position too? I await her response to the Liberal amendment.

Greg Mulholland: I shall speak briefly on a couple of points that were missed or misrepresented. An additional cost is clearly associated with academies when compared with maintained schools. Our figure is £21,000 per pupil per year, compared with £14,000. If that does not influence improved results, I do not know what does. We cannot possibly take that out of the equation. As we have heard from the evidence—evidence that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges—the programme simply has not justified the extra expenditure.
I should also like to talk about Conservatives’ supposed localism in this matter. Academy policy is dictated from the Department in Whitehall. To describe that as a local policy is extraordinary, and is very much at odds with our genuine vision of local choice based in the community. My point, however, goes back to parental choice. The idea that imposing academies on communities gives the kind of parental choice that the hon. Gentleman is talking about and the kind of vision that we can all agree on simply does not stack up.
We have seen the imposition of faith-based academies in certain areas. In Leeds, Braim Wood school, which had a large number of Muslim pupils, was replaced by a Church of England academy. The same thing happened in Leicester and in south-east London, and no secular alternative existed. That is not parental choice.
We must also accept that under the academy programme as it currently stands, the Department for Education and Skills can impose academies against parental wishes. In Barnsley, only 39 per cent. of parents were in favour of the academy, and a similar thing happened in Liverpool.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend illustrated the advances made by city technology colleges, and highlighted them as forerunners of academies. How many CTCs has the hon. Gentleman visited, and have those visits enlightened his view on the subject?

Greg Mulholland: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, because I told the Committee, I have been in my position for a matter of weeks, so I have not yet done so. I have concentrated on visiting those excellent schools that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, and I shall continue to do so as a starting point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a sensible one. How can he talk about a localist policy imposed from Whitehall?

Angela Smith: I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assumption that all local authorities who choose to have academies are forced to do so. In Sheffield, the initial approach to establishing academies came from a Liberal council and was continued by Labour out of choice. Some 99 per cent. of parents in the school chosen to convert to academy status were in favour of a city academy. Like the Liberal Democrats, we made that choice because that inner-city school would have closed if we had not done something soon.

Greg Mulholland: The case that the hon. Lady mentions is one in which parents quite clearly wanted an academy. We are not saying that when that happens, one should not be created.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. In Stockport, which as he knows has a Liberal Democrat-controlled council, the pursuit of an academy is being led by the local authority. Is he saying that the local authority is wrong?

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman puts forward our view of localism excellently. At a local level—[Interruption.]

Frank Cook: Order. There is far too much hullabaloo. We shall conduct our discussions according to “Erskine May” and Standing Orders. That means that everyone will have the chance to be heard, and I shall see to it that that is so.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr. Cook.
At a local level, people have to make decisions that they believe will be in the interests of their local community. Let us be realistic—because this and earlier Governments have been so centralising, every local authority has to work within the framework of legislation. If they have to make certain decisions within that framework, that is perfectly reasonable.
I go back to my previous point on the influence of private sponsors. I still do not feel that that question has been adequately dealt with, particularly given that when the academy proposals were first suggested, 20 per cent. of the cost was going to be met by private sponsors. That ended up being about £2 million, when the cost of the academies was up to £38 million. Yet the same influence over the curriculum, staffing decisions and ethos is still there. How can that possibly be called local accountability?
I ask the Minister one simple question. She is well aware of, and has acknowledged in debates, the issue of results in respect of academies, specifically relating to the issue of intake, powerfully raised by Professor Stephen Gorard of York university in his evidence to the Select Committee. There are also other issues, such as exclusions. What will the Minister do to give people confidence that the academies will not have a distorting effect on local education provision as a whole? That is why we tabled amendment No. 70, which is key.
If parents want academies under the current system, they should have them. However, if they are not wanted by parents or local authorities, they should not be imposed. There should not be extra financial incentives to influence the decision, as there clearly have been through “building schools for the future”. We want the Minister to say that academies are not a panacea. They are still unproven and there are serious issues that need to be resolved.

Jacqui Smith: I want to make a technical point about amendment No. 69, which would give the Secretary of State the power to suspend the inclusion of academies in competitions for new schools for as long as it took for their effectiveness to be evaluated. Its practical significance would be negligible, as the exercise of the power would be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. In any case, under current legislation on academies, proposals for academies may be brought forward at any time outside competition. Technically, amendment No. 69 is pretty feeble.
The hon. Member for Brent, East was completely honest. She was not interested in the technicalities of the amendment. What she was interested in and what we have received is an unhealthy cocktail of diatribe, anecdote and misrepresentation on the development of academies. More significantly, we have had an amendment and discussion based on a false premise—that somehow the approach to and achievements of academies are unproven.
Let us get a few facts on the record. We already know that academies are working; the proportion of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs has risen from 21 per cent.—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Frank Cook: May I ask hon. Members to deactivate their pagers or mobiles, if they had them on during the Division, or to rig them for silent running?

Jacqui Smith: When we were interrupted I was attempting to get a few facts into the debate about academies. I had just pointed out that it is not the case that the success of academies is unproven: actually, the GCSE results show that in 2005 the proportion of students gaining five or more good GCSEs had risen from 21 per cent. in academies’ predecessor schools to 36.4 per cent. in the academies.
If we want not only more recent but more wide-ranging information, we can look at the recently-published key stage 3 results, which show that academies are continuing to make strong increases in the numbers of their pupils reaching level 5 or above at key stage 3. In many ways, that figure is more representative because most academies have children who have had their key stage 3 assessment, whereas many have not yet had cohorts take their GCSEs.
The key stage 3 results published last month show that yet again—as with GCSE results—academies are raising standards. Overall, academies are showing an increase in the number of pupils reaching level 5 or above at key stage 3—of 8 per cent. in English and science, and 7 per cent. in maths. Those figures are all much higher than the national average increase. In academies, the average points score at key stage 3 has risen by 1.1 per cent.—nearly three times the national average increase for all schools, which is 0.4 per cent. That is evidence that academies are improving their academic and exam performance.
That is backed up by the positive assessments from recent Ofsted inspections and the ongoing independent PricewaterhouseCoopers evaluation of the programme, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred. Furthermore, academies are proving hugely popular with parents and students. For example, the City of London academy in Southwark received about 1,200 applications for 180 year-7 places for September 2005. Almost all academies are heavily over-subscribed.
We know that the status quo is not working for some of our most deprived children. The schools that they are or were attending have failed them, year in, year out. To delay the establishment of academies would be to risk failing yet another generation of children. Waiting, or carrying out some bizarre controlled experiment, as suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, might be the approach that the Liberal Democrats want to take, but the Government are frankly not prepared to see some of the most deprived children in our communities continue in schools that do not enable them to fulfil their potential.
Let us consider the inclusive nature of academies. As I have said, the most important point is that academies are established in disadvantaged areas. Overwhelmingly, if they are over-subscribed, proximity is the key priority in their admissions arrangements. Section 482 of the Education Act 1996, as amended, requires that the children at an academy be wholly or mainly drawn from the local area. They are local schools, attended by local families, but the difference is that, whereas before, parents would do almost anything to send their children to schools further away, rather than the predecessor school, local parents trust and choose academies for their children.
Academies are required by law to cater for children of all abilities. They must take part in local admissions forums and have regard to their advice to ensure that admissions arrangements are co-ordinated locally, consult on their admissions arrangements each year, and have regard to the special educational needs code of practice and statutory guidance on inclusion. In relation to the specific point about the looked-after children improvements that we are making in this Bill, they will apply to academies as well. The route may be different—it will be through the funding agreement and direction from the Secretary of State—but the effect will be the same.
The 2005 PWC evaluation confirmed that academies are inclusive. For example, it found that the average level of academy pupils’ prior attainment at key stage 2 is near the bottom of the national spread: it is lower than that of other local schools with an overlapping intake. It also found that academies have been drawing pupils from within the local feeder primary schools whose average key stage 2 attainment is even lower than the overall average for their primary school. So they are doing a good job with some of the pupils with the least good prior attainment in the area.
The average number of pupils known—from available data—to be eligible for free school meals in the 2004 year-7 academy intakes is 34 per cent. compared with a national average of 14 per cent. Because more families are willing to trust academies, there are now more pupils on free school meals in academies than there were in their predecessor schools. 
On exclusions, of course academies are established in disadvantaged areas, where generations of pupils have been denied the quality of education that we would have wanted them to have. Some academies have had a large number of disruptive pupils, and some of those have been excluded. However, they are working incredibly hard and behaviour in them is improving, with the result that the number of exclusions has fallen. The hon. Member for Brent, East referred to the King’s academy. That academy permanently excluded 28 pupils in 2003-04 whereas in the last year of the predecessor school 37 students were referred to Middlesbrough’s pupil referral unit—so fewer pupils were excluded by the academy than were taken out of the predecessor school. The situation is the same in respect of fixed-term exclusions.
In its first year, the Manchester academy excluded 80 per cent. fewer pupils than the predecessor school had done, and in the summer term 2004 exclusions from the city academy in Bristol were also down by 80 per cent. on the previous year under the predecessor school. It is not true that the contribution of academies is unproven. It is beginning to be proven: academies are turning round the opportunities for their children. As I suggested earlier, I am not willing to put that progress on hold to please the prejudice of the Liberal Democrats.
The effect of amendment No. 70 would be to require a local authority, in deciding between proposals in a competition, to have regard to the effect of an academy on other schools in the area. I can reassure hon. Members that local consultation is already required in the development of every single academy proposal. All those with an interest have to be consulted, including neighbouring schools, FE colleges and sixth form colleges. All concerned have the opportunity to make their views known.
We are clear that academies are required to be part of the local family of schools, sharing their facilities and expertise with other schools and with the wider community, and contributing to raising standards in the area. We are confident that academies will have a positive impact on neighbouring schools as they increase choices for pupils and help to regenerate the communities in which they are located. For example, at the Capital city academy in Brent, the school sport co-ordinator programme is already making extensive links with other primary and secondary schools. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to see that removed from her constituency.
Finally, the effect of amendment No. 152 would be to prohibit the Secretary of State from offering an inducement to a local authority that is deciding a competition for a new school that includes proposals for the establishment of an academy.
Let me reassure hon. Members and put right the comment that was repeated twice about the funding differential. Academies are funded in recurrent terms at a rate comparable to that used for all the other maintained schools in their locality. Academies’ building plans are based on the same cost benchmarks as those of all other schools whose buildings are approved by the DFES. So academies do not receive any more funding than other schools. In receiving an initial substantial capital investment in their buildings, they are simply sharing in this Government’s ambitious capital plans to replace or modernise every secondary school in the next 15 years.
If I am asked about my priorities, I will say that I believe that the investment in academies is worth while when it gives new opportunities to communities that have been failed educationally for generations. It is part of a programme that will benefit every school in the country, and which is already producing record levels of investment, particularly under “building schools for the future”. Given those levels of investment, I do not think it is unreasonable that the Government should say that, where secondary schools are deemed to be failing or underperforming, we expect local authorities to consider objectively the potential role of academies as part of their “building schools for the future” strategy. The programme is about transforming not only the fabric of buildings but educational opportunities for children in those areas.

Andrew Gwynne: On “building schools for the future”, the Minister will be aware that in Tameside, we are looking at rebuilding seven secondary schools in the largest school-building programme in the borough since the 1950s; a substantial investment is to be made. Originally, it was proposed that there would be one academy, but Tameside council is considering increasing the number to three—not because it is being forced to by the Department, but because it wants to. The council foresees a real, positive impact on the whole Tameside school family from having those academies form part of the network of schools in the borough.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend strongly makes the case on why forward-looking local authorities that care about provision for their pupils are considering academies as a serious option as they take forward their “building schools for the future” proposals. That is right and it is happening. Where there are problems of failure or underperformance and an authority is not proposing to utilise the academies programme to address it, it is not unreasonable to expect the authority to demonstrate that it has alternative strategies in place—and the capacity to implement them—that are at least as likely to achieve the necessary improvements. Such a case can be made. The BSF project involving South Tyneside and Gateshead authorities does not include any academy proposals and its education vision has been approved by Ministers.
What is important is what makes a difference for children and young people. We should celebrate the contribution that academies make to turning around the life chances of some of the children in this country who need it the most, and reject the prejudice of the Liberal Democrats and their amendment.

Sarah Teather: This has been a helpful debate, albeit a little fractious on occasion. I want to clarify a few points.
Some local education authorities complain that they feel as though they are being bribed, or that their hands are tied and they are not able to exercise their preferred choices in a local area. They say not that they are being asked to consider including an academy in their mix of schools, but that they are being forced to do so, which is a different matter. A local authority might be put in a real dilemma if the sponsors coming forward in the area are all faith-based but there is already over-provision of faith-based schools in the area and the authority is aware that parents want something else. Having a competition and encouraging sponsors to come forward does not necessarily mean that those that do come forward will be appropriate or desirable for the local area.
I thank the Minister for putting on the record her comments on children in care. That was helpful, and we will look into the issue. With those few points, and with the time in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Consultation and publicity in relation to notice and proposals under section 7

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, leave out
‘such persons as appear to the authority to be appropriate;'
and insert ‘parents within the locality'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 331, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, after ‘appropriate', insert
‘and which must include the headteacher and the chairman of governors of all maintained schools in areas adjacent to the proposed school'.
No. 348, in clause 8, page 7, line 27, after ‘appropriate', insert
‘and in the case of religious-based schools, the relevant church or religious authority'.

John Hayes: The explanatory notes on clause 8 state:
“This clause provides that before publishing a notice under clause 7, local education authorities in England must consult such persons as they consider to be appropriate, and in discharging this duty they must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that regulations may require local education authorities to take further steps to promote public awareness of the proposals brought forward.”
Our amendment would prevent vastly different practices from developing because it limits the consultation to parents. It is a probing amendment. It brings us to an element of our discussions that has loomed large today in the considerations of Committee members of all parties: the role of parents in this process.
A different view of the role of parents has begun to emerge. I do not take the view that parents are the only people who have an interest in the education of children. In an earlier sitting, I spoke about the pivotal role of the educator and how we ought to elevate teachers in our estimation because they are important people in whose hands we place the future. However, in respect of the intentions behind the Bill, the most likely drivers of the type of change that the Minister mentioned in the last debate are parents. Parents are the people who are likely to make the most difference and to want to do so. I believe, as does the Minister, I think, that that difference can mean renewal, and renewal is vital if we are to address some of the problems of our most disadvantaged communities and most struggling schools. This probing amendment is designed to tease out from the Government just how pivotal they consider parents to be in this process.
Parents are surely the most appropriate people to consult. Although I acknowledge that there are differences in the Committee about the precise role of parents, we all understand that parents are very important. The hon. Member for Bury, North, in one of his typically well informed interventions, listed the things he believes add up to a good education. He talked about the home-school relationship and the important role that parents play in motivating children, preparing them for school, interacting with the school, and setting a context in which good education is likely to flourish. As I have said, however, although all Committee members understand that parents are important, the relative nature of their importance is something we may differ about.
The so-called alternative White Paper, to which the hon. Gentleman and others put their names, highlights some of those differences, because it specifically addresses the role of parents in the process that lies at the heart of the Bill, which is essentially the establishment of new schools and the renewal that that can bring. The alternative White Paper states:
“The commitment of parents to their children’s education and the opportunities that can be created for their participation in their children’s school is important.”
It goes on to say:
“Not all pupils have parents who are engaged equally or wish to be.”
It also says that the assumption that
“Parent power is...always...present and just waiting to be unleashed in a way which will be wholly beneficial”
should be challenged.
Of course it is true that parents vary and that some people are more engaged and committed to the interests of their children than others. We could leave it at that and be comfortable with that status quo. However, if we take the Conservative view that by giving parents the incentive to become more involved and enabling them to make a difference, one is likely to unleash new potential, it is important that we ensure that the Bill contains provisions that maximise parental influence. We do not disagree that the current picture is patchy. The difference between us centres on our belief in the potential of parents to make a difference. That has been highlighted by the comments that have been made in previous debates and emphasised by the amendment.
There might also be a difference in our views on how local authorities could choose to use the consultation process to inhibit the energy of parents that I have described. I am not naturally a cynical person. As you probably know, Mr. Cook, I am a romantic—[Laughter.] I make no bones about my romantic idealism, for it is at the heart of my politics. I am, not cynical, but a little doubtful—perhaps even sceptical—about the intent of some of those who, faced with the legislation, may erect obstacles to the achievement of the Government’s purpose. It might be that there will be people who see the consultation process as a way of slowing down and inhibiting—

Edward Leigh: No!

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is even less sceptical and even more of a romantic than I am. Some people might see the process as a way of frustrating the intent of the Government and the purpose of the Bill. Conservative Members believe that by simplifying the consultation process, as the amendment would do, we will prevent any malcontents who might use this part of the Bill to slow down the process, or perhaps even stop it, from having their way.
In that effort, we are at one with the Prime Minister. I do not say that he always gets it right—hon. Members would hardly expect me to say that here or anywhere else—but in introducing the White Paper, he was right about the potential of parent power. Judging by the contributions that they have already made and what I assess to be their good intentions, I am certain that all Committee members want schools to improve in those areas where they are currently struggling and want every child to achieve their educational potential. However, as Abraham Lincoln said, we will not be able to help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. By giving people the opportunity to become more involved in their children’s education, in the running of schools and in the birth of new schools, we can make a real difference to those disadvantaged communities and those children who might otherwise struggle.
The White Paper is clear. It states at paragraph 2.1:
“We are determined to transform our school system into one that responds better to the needs and aspirations of parents. Every parent should be confident that the system is delivering for their child. Every community should be confident that all parents can choose an excellent school. And the nation needs to ensure that areas of underperformance which undermine our efforts to improve social mobility are tackled vigorously.”
And at paragraph 2.2, it says:
“To create real choice and diversity for parents, we need...an easy route through which parents can generate change; and...new providers rooted in their community”
and stimulated by parental activity. As I say, that spirit that underpinned the White Paper could be frustrated unless the Committee accepts our amendment, which would further the aims of the White Paper by ensuring that there is an easy route by which parents can generate change.
We should not be doubtful in any way about the mountain that parents will have to climb to generate a new school. It will not be easy. To gather sufficient numbers of parents with the will and wherewithal to establish a new school in their area is not an easy task. Earlier in Committee, the hon. Member for Brent, East talked about getting 50 parents together, and said that that was not a great number, but I disagree. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that getting 50 parents together, getting families to commit and getting people to believe that they can make a difference will be a tough job. It is our task to make that job as easy as possible, and not to allow further barriers to be put in their way.
In proposing the amendment, I believe that we are acting in the spirit of the White Paper and improving the Bill. We are making a strong statement for parent power. I believe in parent power not for its own sake, but because it can make a real, positive difference to the interests of our children.
I shall now say a word about the amendments in this group tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I understand his intent in tabling them. He will speak for them with his usual wit and elegance, and we will have a chance to respond to what he says.

Edward Leigh: I am not leader of the party yet, so my hon. Friend does not have to suck up to me.

John Hayes: I believe that my hon. Friend’s proper emphasis of, for example, the role of Churches and neighbouring schools is born of his determination to ensure that new schools work as closely as possible with the community in which they sit and take account of the important advice and influence that Churches and other bodies can bring to bear. I simply wonder—I shall be interested to hear his comments—whether that, in itself, might not be a further drag on the process.
My worry is that some of the figures in authority in various movements—I will not be too specific—do not share my hon. Friend’s dynamism, energy, and clear-sighted purpose. They may themselves have become part of an educational orthodoxy that, rather than embracing renewal and improvement, might be unhelpful to our pursuit of those things. I simply say to my hon. Friend that we do not want to put any barriers in the way of parents who desperately want to make a difference. In that spirit, I am delighted to propose the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and wait with interest to hear what my hon. Friend will say in defence of his amendment.

Edward Leigh: My amendments were probing amendments, and after the eloquence displayed by my hon. Friend, they are now even more probing than they were before. For all that, when coupled with my hon. Friend’s amendment, they do a useful job. We are going to elicit a wide range of possible consultees from the Minister and discover what she means by saying that the local education authority must
“consult such persons as appear to the authority to be appropriate”.
That is the key.
In all honesty, it must be clear by now, even if members of the Committee have not read the amendments, that my vision is that all schools should be independent charitable trusts, free of local authority control. That is my vision, but we are where we are. It is extremely unlikely that I shall be able to convince the Minister of the virtue of that viewpoint, although I am confident that, over the course of this Parliament, I will convince those who lead for my party on education.
I do not speak for the Conservative party. The virtue of being a Back Bencher is that one can be a sort of outrider for the party—[Laughter.] There is no harm in that. All political parties need people to think creatively, which is what I try to do. That is my role, as it is in part the role of my amendments.
The Minister will have to address the problem. I shall not labour the point—I made it this morning with regard to our experience with grant-maintained schools—but I suspect that, as my hon. Friend says, she will find that unfortunately not everyone shares her enthusiasm for the establishment of trust schools. With a clause such as clause 8, I fear that local education authorities will use consultation as a means of obfuscation or of putting barriers in the path of those wishing to set up trust schools.
Who should be consulted? Obviously someone should be consulted, otherwise what is the point of such a clause? My hon. Friend is right that there is no harm in consulting parents. One of the problems with that, as we all know, is that parents are rightly focused on their children at the time of their education, and it is difficult for them to take a strategic view. That is the argument continuously advanced by the hon. Member for Bury, North, by Members of the Liberal party and others.
Are parents best qualified to have a view—or, as I suggest in my amendments, does the Minister envisage that local authorities will consult
“the chairman of governors of all maintained schools in areas adjacent to the proposed school”?
That would seem to be a fairly sensible point of view, would it not? Presumably, therefore, the Minister might agree.
If someone wants to set up a new faith school, based on a trust, will the local authority follow the spirit of amendment No. 348, which states:
“in the case of religious-based schools, the relevant church or religious authority”.
One would think that that was sensible, but what do we mean by faith school? In the recent census, a large number of people apparently said as a joke that they were part of the Jedi knights religion, because a newspaper has suggested that it would be a good way of irritating the authorities. Would I be allowed to set up a Jedi knights faith school? If I said that I wanted to set up a Catholic school, what sort of Catholic school would it be? Would I have to consult the bishop and the local hierarchy?
It would be useful to know the Minister’s view of who should be consulted. The amendments, by their all-embracing nature, should encourage the Minister to do precisely that.

Sarah Teather: I shall be brief. I shall refer mainly to amendment No. 159, moved the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) rather than the outriding amendments.
The amendment would remove the requirement for local authorities to consult more widely than school parents. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether parents were less qualified than others to have a view. They are not less qualified, but we should accept that schools have a more important role than teaching those young people attending the school at the time. We should consider the wider policies of extended schools, early-years centres and children centres, and community use of facilities out of school hours. It is important that the community is consulted on the criteria used when a new school is set up. Consultation is not necessarily about slowing things down; it may be simply a matter of ensuring that a school is appropriate for local need and that consideration goes wider than the young people at the school.

Jacqui Smith: The clause to which the amendments relate is all about the requirements to consult prior to issuing proposals for a competition and how those proposals should be brought to the attention of various groups. The amendments largely relate to the situation on the consultation prior to the issuing of the notice for competition.
Amendment No. 159 would mean that the local authority had to consult parents in the area, not anyone else, before it published a notice inviting proposals in a competition. That is the technical effect of the amendment. However, I think that this is a probing amendment, because the clause currently requires the authority to consult those it considers it appropriate, having regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State. I have some sympathy with the importance that the amendment gives to parents. We had a good discussion about that in relation to amendments Nos. 180 and 182 to clause 7 which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. There is significance in ensuring that parents are involved. Of course, they should be consulted about proposals affecting provision in their area and their views should be treated seriously, but that does not mean that nobody else should be consulted—and that would be the effect of the amendment.
Given that this is a probing amendment, perhaps I should just clarify who we think should be consulted about statutory proposals. Among those who we think should be consulted are the local Member of Parliament for the area that the school is intended to serve; any MP whose constituents are likely to be affected by the proposals; the local district or parish council for the area where the school is to be situated; and other schools in the area, including those in an adjoining local education authority that may be affected by the proposals, whether community, foundation, voluntary, or special schools.
Any local education authority likely to be affected by the proposals should be consulted, including neighbouring LEAs where there may be significant cross-border movement of pupils, as should parents and staff in the area who might be affected by the proposals, including parents of pupils at feeder primary schools and those living in, or who have children attending a school in, the area of an adjoining LEA.
The local Church of England and Roman Catholic diocese should be consulted, as should anyone else who has previously expressed an interest in setting up a maintained school and others who might be willing to come forward as promoters. If the proposed school is likely to affect a school with a particular religious foundation, the appropriate diocesan authorities, or, where there is no diocesan structure, the national faith group that provides that school, should be consulted.
There should also be consultation with any trust or foundation providing a foundation or voluntary school that does not have a religious character, if the proposed school is likely to affect such a school. If the proposals affect the provision of full-time 16-to-19 education, the Learning and Skills Council should be included. Any other interested party should be consulted. For example, the early years development and child care partnership should be consulted, where proposals would affect early years provision, as should all those who benefit from a contractual arrangement giving them the use of the premises. That might cover the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
Accepting the amendment, virtuous though its emphasis on parents is, would disfranchise a large number of interested people whom we think have a legitimate interest in the opening of a new school that will affect them, whether they support the proposals or are opposed to them. There should be a recognised route for interested parties to make their views known.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the list. She will have noted that I was worried about there being differences between one locality and another—that some consultees might be included in one place, but not in a neighbouring area. She has made it clear that the guidance will not allow that. However, does she feel that parents should merely be included in that list or that there should be a special role for parents, a parallel process? Just listing local parents with all those other groups would be rather to undersell their significance.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has a fair point in that the nature of the consultation will differ according to different groups; if it did not, that would be completely unreasonable. Sending a letter may be perfectly adequate consultation for a neighbouring local authority, but doing that or publishing a notice would not be adequate for parents, unless we could ensure that it got to them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point; there should probably be a differentiated approach to how the consultation is carried out. However, it is important that there should be clear emphasis on who should be consulted in each circumstance. That is why the guidance is statutory.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 348 would insert requirements to consult the head teachers and chairs of governors of all maintained schools in the area, and, in the case of any religiously based schools, the relevant Church or religious authority. Given what I have said, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Gainsborough that not only are we not opposed to such provisions, but we think that heads, chairs of school governing bodies and appropriate religious authorities should be consulted.
We do not think it necessary to put that in the Bill, but the duty to consult such people as appear to the authority to be appropriate should be represented in the statutory guidance that we shall issue in respect of the clause. I have said that the guidance will specify that other schools in the area must be consulted and that if the proposed school is likely to affect a school that has a particular religious character, the appropriate diocesan authorities—or, if there is no diocesan structure, the national faith group that provides the school—should be consulted too.
It is not open to the authority to disregard the statutory guidance. If it did not consult one of the listed persons, that would be prime facie evidence that the consultation had not been properly carried out, and that would need to be rectified before the competition proceeded.
The guidance will require full consultation on the proposed competition, including local schools, religious authorities, local parents and other stakeholders.

Edward Leigh: There is a clear structure in respect of existing faith schools, particularly in relation to the role of the diocese. Will the Minister remind me how that structure would be replicated in the case of a new trust school? It would be unfortunate if people wanted to produce schools based on sects within a religion divorced from mainstream religion. What checks and balances does the Minister envisage?

Jacqui Smith: That takes us back to this morning’s discussion, in which I said that I would bring to the Committee guidance for decision makers about the process that a school governing body would go through in acquiring a relationship with a particular trust and that would enable us to set down the criteria for that trust.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that a sect would not be beneficial to the advancement of education at a school, he should know that it would be prohibited by the fact that advancement of education would be one of the statutory objects of the trust. I have made it clear that the statutory guidance will state that the appropriate diocesan authorities—or the nationally recognised faith bodies of religions without such authorities—should be consulted. In light of those reassurances about the full consultation on the proposed competition, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: I have scarcely felt more reassured. The right hon. Lady generously described the groups that will be consulted. I note her point that different groups may require a different approach to take account of their sensitivities and their role in the process. She is right that that satisfies those of us who want to see parents at the very heart of the process.
I am conscious of the time, Mr. Cook, and that my beautiful wife and son are waiting for me to go to tea—[Hon. Members: “Where?”] I am not telling hon. Members today, but I will report back when we next meet. On that happy note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 25 April at half-past Ten o’clock.